YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Le paradoxe de l’intelligence

Le paradoxe de l’intelligence — Transcript

by CroustiJu · 3,185 words · 481 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00As usual, we're going to play a little
0:01game. Here's a black and white image
0:03and I'm going to ask you what you see
0:05in it. Probably nothing at all or just
0:08a few shapes in the spots. However, it
0:10illustrates something well and once you
0:12know it, you can't miss it. Before I
0:15show you what's hidden, I'd like you to
0:17choose a team, either the blue or the
0:19red. This kind of thing isn't usual in
0:21a video, but let me guide you and make
0:23your choice. Okay? Now that that's done
0:27, the red team, you're going to close
0:28your eyes while the blue team, you're
0:30going to continue looking at the screen
0:31. Again, I know this is a strange
0:33request, but the red team, close your
0:35eyes and let my voice guide you. I'll
0:37tell you to reopen them soon. The
0:39others, look closely in front of you,
0:41something should be happening. The red
0:47team, you can watch the video again.
0:50And now, I'm going to ask the blue team
0:52, the other team, to play the game and
0:54close their eyes. The red team, it's
0:56your turn to watch what's happening for
0:57a few seconds. And there you have it,
1:03it's over. Now, everyone can open their
1:05eyes. And here, something might come to
1:08mind: what does what we just did
1:09together have to do with the topic of
1:11the video? Don't worry, you'll figure
1:13it out very quickly. All my life, I've
1:17believed that the world would be a
1:19better place if we were all smarter,
1:20that most problems would be solved
1:22fairly quickly, including the
1:23polarization of our opinions and all
1:25our disagreements, whether it's on the
1:27climate, the economy or health. It
1:29seems logical. The smarter we are, the
1:31more we understand the world and
1:32therefore the more likely we are to
1:34agree on our ideas. If there were a
1:36magic button that gave every human
1:38being on earth a CUI greater than 150,
1:40we would press it without hesitation
1:42and everything would be much better.
1:44Together, we could solve each of our
1:46problems. Except that no, it might even
1:49be the opposite. This button could doom
1:52us all. The explanation can be found in
1:55an image. But if I'm hiding it from you
1:57, it's because to understand it, we
1:59first need to look at a graph that
2:01shows a fascinating phenomenon:
2:02motivated reasoning. For context, we
2:05are in the middle of a US presidential
2:07election. On one side is the Republican
2:09Bush, and on the other, Democrat Kry.
2:11If you like, it's a bit like the right
2:13and the left in France, even if the
2:14comparison is very shaky because there
2:16are so many nuances that come into play
2:18. The researchers formed a group of
2:20pro-Democrats and a group of
2:21pro-Republicans to give them a test.
2:24First, he shows them a speech by a
2:26candidate, then another video where he
2:28contradicts himself. Finally, they
2:30asked the participants to rate on a
2:33scale of 1 to 4 how incoherent the
2:35candidate was. So 1 is OK and 4 is
2:38completely contradictory. Finally, they
2:42also tested it by showing both groups
2:43contradictory words from a writer to
2:45use as a control group. And that's how
2:48we end up with our graph. If people
2:50were perfectly rational and logical,
2:52all the columns should be at about the
2:54same height, exactly like the last two
2:56when the conditions are neutral. Except
2:59that we can clearly see that the
3:00Democrats find Bush, the opposing
3:02candidate, very inconsistent. And
3:04conversely, the Republicans find Kryur,
3:06the opponent, to be inconsistent. You
3:09might be thinking that this was obvious
3:10and that there was no need for a
3:12scientific study to understand it. We
3:13all suffer from biases and so we are
3:15not objective with the candidate we
3:17support and logically very hard on the
3:19one who opposes us. Except that the
3:21scientists didn't stop there. They
3:23observed the brain of each participant
3:25at the same time. And the surprise in
3:27general when they saw a contradiction
3:29from their favorite candidates, the
3:31part that manages reasoning, logic and
3:33analysis was partially inhibited. The
3:35area became almost inactive. Conversely
3:38, the one that manages conflicts and
3:40emotional distress lit up on the
3:42scanner. Instead of processing the
3:44information rationally, their brain
3:45sees it as a threat and makes them
3:47suffer. This is what is called
3:48cognitive dissonance. When we are
3:50confronted with two pieces of
3:52information about behavior that are
3:53contradictory, supporters agree with
3:55their candidate and find it consistent,
3:57only to end up watching a video of him
3:58contradicting himself right after.
4:00Their brain does not like this
4:02illogical sequence at all and will use
4:04stratagems to erase this discomfort.
4:06And one of the most recurrent of these
4:08is motivated reasoning. If you like, it
4:10is as if we had two ways of thinking.
4:13Where we are an explorer, meaning we
4:15follow the evidence to arrive at the
4:17most objective conclusion possible, or
4:19where we are a lawyer who distorts
4:20reality to save our client. And this
4:23second method is motivated reasoning.
4:26When our brain, in order to protect its
4:27vision of the world and its beliefs,
4:29decides not to seek arguments to find
4:31the truth, but rather to seek to
4:32protect its own. It's a bit like when
4:36there's a foul in a football match and
4:38we see the supporters of each team
4:39finding all sorts of arguments to
4:41rewrite reality instead of really
4:42looking at it objectively. Basically,
4:45it's a form of unconscious bad faith
4:46and we're all victims of it. Our brain
4:49does nothing but this all day long. It
4:51acts like a lawyer so that reality
4:53aligns with the one we want to see. Now
4:56that that's clear to you, let's imagine
4:57that we do exactly the same experiment
4:59again. Except that instead of showing
5:01our participants contradictions, we're
5:03simply going to show them the following
5:05sentence: In your opinion, is there
5:07solid evidence that recent global
5:09warming is mainly due to human
5:11activities such as the burning of
5:12fossil fuels? If they totally agree,
5:16they're at the top, else below. And
5:19quite logically, the Democrats will be
5:20placed here and the Republicans there.
5:24Okay? Let's imagine that we add
5:25intelligence on the x-axis. Here are
5:28the least, and on the right, the most.
5:31In your opinion, what will our graph
5:33look like? At first glance, it might
5:35look like this. Two parallel lines
5:38showing that intelligence has no impact
5:40or even a convergence of the two which
5:42proves that intelligence allows us to
5:44reach agreement. Except that as you can
5:47guess from the context of the video,
5:49the reality is quite different. And
5:51precisely, the answer is in the graph
5:53that I hid from you at the beginning.
6:00It seems super counterintuitive, but
6:02the more intelligent people are, the
6:04more extreme and polarized their
6:05opinions become, while the less
6:07intelligent are less divided. So how
6:09can we explain this? We've talked about
6:11motivated reasoning, which explains why
6:13everyone protects their own beliefs and
6:14ideas. But why does it vary according
6:17to intelligence? Is it intelligence
6:19that divides our societies and prevents
6:20us from reaching an agreement? To
6:22understand this, we need to look at
6:24what the researchers in the study call
6:25intelligence. To calculate it, they
6:27established a variable that they called
6:29OSI. If you like, it's a combination of
6:33three faculties: scientific knowledge,
6:34ease with numbers, and the ability to
6:36avoid being trapped by intuition. And
6:39now, some of you may be thinking that
6:41intelligence is much more than that.
6:43It's not just scientific, and even less
6:44can it be summed up in these three
6:45pillars. And you would be right. I
6:48really enjoy talking about this topic
6:49with my friends because we see how our
6:51definition of this term is different
6:52and unique to each person. Some see it
6:55as computing power to solve problems.
6:58Others add knowledge and culture to it,
7:00a bit like cooking tests, while some
7:02add emotional and social abilities to
7:04intelligence. And all this for a good
7:07reason: there is no universal
7:09definition. It is a catch-all term
7:11where everyone puts in what they want.
7:13Apart from IQ, the best-known view is
7:15that of Garner's nine types of
7:16intelligence, which you may have seen
7:18in class. It allows for quite a few
7:20nuances in defining the concept, but it
7:22is still imperfect. Look, does
7:24naturalism really have its place?
7:26Couldn't we add ethics or morals? In
7:29short, all this to tell you that it is
7:30not fixed, that the definition is
7:32constantly evolving and that it will
7:34continue to change. So I suggest that
7:37we represent it together in the
7:38simplest possible way, in a form that
7:39we are all familiar with. In this way,
7:45we can see concretely that intelligence
7:47has several facets and that it is not
7:48something that can be quantified with a
7:50score like cooked intelligence. We have
7:54fluid intelligence, which is a bit like
7:56our computing power; crystallized
7:57intelligence, which is our knowledge
7:59and memory; social intelligence, which
8:01is quite evocative but it is our way of
8:03interacting with others and our empathy
8:05; Verbal, the ability to turn thoughts
8:07into words and understand those of
8:09others. And finally, metacognition. My
8:13favorite phase, that of being able to
8:15think about one's thoughts, to do
8:17introspection and understand one's own
8:19functioning. And each individual has
8:21their own cube with their own
8:23variations. Of course, this is an
8:26imperfect representation. As I said
8:27earlier, I think that no definition
8:29will be able to convince everyone. And
8:32that is why the one on the graph, the
8:34OSI, can bother us. But at least, based
8:36on these three principles, they managed
8:38to classify each participant. Whereas
8:40for other facets of our cube, it's much
8:42more complicated. For example, how do
8:44we quantify our social intelligence and
8:45how do we know if it's more or less
8:47valuable than others? That's all well
8:50and good, but we still haven't answered
8:51our question. Namely, why does
8:52intelligence seem to divide people in
8:54this way? Why do the smartest Democrats
8:57and Republicans agree the least?
8:59Remember our motivated reasoning and
9:01especially the metaphor of the lawyer.
9:03In this way, our brain thinks backwards
9:05, starting from its beliefs to find
9:07arguments. If you're ever accused in
9:10court to defend yourself, you'd rather
9:12have a mediocre lawyer or a brilliant
9:14one who'll always agree with you.
9:18Because a very good lawyer won't try to
9:20discover the objective truth. He will
9:22do all he can to protect you and
9:24validate your version of events. He
9:27will seek out all possible and
9:28imaginable evidence to twist reality to
9:30your advantage. He will demonstrate all
9:31opposing arguments by finding the flaw
9:33in each line of reasoning. He will do
9:35the complete opposite of the explorer.
9:36Instead of finding the truth, he will
9:38instead justify your truth. Do you
9:41understand what I was getting at? The
9:43more intelligent you are, the more
9:45powerful your advocate and motivated
9:46reasoning, making it harder for you to
9:48open up to other points of view. That
9:52is why the two curves move apart. The
9:54more intellectual tools we have at our
9:56disposal, the more we have, the easier
9:59it is for us to build a prison, a
10:01gigantic wall of logic to protect our
10:03opinions. And we must understand that
10:05it is not this intelligence that
10:06directly divides us. It is not because
10:08you are one that you will be a complete
10:10Democrat or a complete Republican. It
10:12does not make you more of a partisan of
10:13a political ideology, but it does lock
10:15us into our ultra-well-constructed
10:17belief system with hundreds of pieces
10:19of knowledge and arguments in our favor
10:20. It is not the compass that directs us
10:23in one direction or the other, but
10:25rather what prevents the needle from
10:27changing course, what prevents us from
10:29changing our minds. So the question we
10:31can ask ourselves is, in which
10:32direction is our compass pointing? If
10:35we have spent our entire lives
10:36accumulating knowledge, beliefs, and
10:37evidence for a certain vision of the
10:39world, wouldn’t our brain, our
10:40advocate, do everything to keep us on
10:42course without us realizing it? No
10:45matter where the truth lies, I don’t
10:46claim to know it or even to affirm that
10:48it exists. But for every subject,
10:50whether it’s American politics,
10:52French politics, whatever we’re
10:53talking about, even the most banal
10:55things, we will inevitably be biased by
10:57our experiences. Our compass will be
11:00oriented in the direction of the sum of
11:02all our past experiences. In all of
11:04this, our intelligence won't guarantee
11:06truth, but risks leaving us completely
11:08frozen. But then, what can we do? We
11:12must all become idiots or else we are
11:14condemned to function as lawyers who
11:16defend our ideas without ever listening
11:18to those of others. How could we
11:20counterbalance this cube that divides
11:22each of us? Well, the answer lies in
11:26the experiment we did at the very
11:27beginning. Do you remember that black
11:29and white image where I asked you to
11:30close your eyes? Normally, just by
11:32seeing that image, you now know what it
11:34hides. But as you can imagine, there is
11:36a little twist. And it is time to
11:38reveal to you what each of you saw.
11:41Here is what the blue team saw as an
11:44image and now what the red team saw.
11:47You are starting to understand what is
11:49happening. Starting from exactly the
11:51same image, you had two completely
11:53different visions. If I had put your
11:55two teams in a room and asked you what
11:56color the ladybug was, you would each
11:58have defended your point of view with
12:00solid evidence. You would have analyzed
12:02each spot and the contrast of each
12:04pixel to prove that you were right.
12:06when you weren't even talking about the
12:08same ladybug. And all this without ever
12:11asking yourself why the others thought
12:13that, without ever questioning your
12:14starting points. Because that's the
12:17only difference, it's the information
12:19that I gave you beforehand. Each team
12:22had the same photo in front of them,
12:24the same reality, but your brain
12:26processed it differently with what I
12:28added, with this life experience, this
12:30belief that I slipped in. There was
12:33simply no way to get you all to agree.
12:39Or maybe there is, maybe there is a way
12:41, one that I deliberately hid from you
12:44throughout the video. Since the
12:48beginning, since our game, there have
12:50never really been two groups, or rather
12:52there have only ever been two groups.
12:55There was a third one, one that I never
12:58mentioned. The curious ones, those who
13:05have never closed their eyes, those who
13:07have seen both images, the beliefs of
13:09both teams, those who can understand
13:11why each person thinks what they think.
13:15From the first few seconds, they knew
13:17much more than the others. They may
13:18have even anticipated this moment. Now,
13:21I take it a little badly because those
13:22of you who are part of this group, you
13:24have somewhat ruined my game and I know
13:25that in the next videos, I can hardly
13:27count on you to listen to me. This
13:29curiosity is like the solution to this
13:31confinement, to the prison that our
13:32intelligence builds. I lied to you a
13:34little when I made you believe that the
13:36study designed with our graph only
13:37focused on this one. On the contrary,
13:39from the beginning, the researchers
13:41wanted to know if curiosity was the
13:43cure for polarization. When we replace
13:45intelligence with curiosity on the
13:47x-axis, we see that the two curves no
13:49longer move apart but remain at the
13:51same distance. Obviously, it doesn't
13:54converge on a point because otherwise
13:55it would mean that either both sides
13:56half-agree with the statement, or that
13:58both sides completely change their
13:59minds. But we can see that curiosity
14:02greatly reduces or even eliminates
14:04disagreements caused by intelligence.
14:06This is even more striking with these
14:08two graphs that show the degree of
14:10polarization according to the OSI, with
14:12those who are not curious on the left
14:13and those who are most curious on the
14:15right. And it seems logical. By dint of
14:18reading and consuming information that
14:20contradicts their beliefs, curious
14:21people refine their perception of the
14:23world and open themselves up to
14:24divergent opinions. While those who are
14:27not curious tend to lean towards
14:28information that already confirms what
14:30they think and reject everything else.
14:33And the craziest thing is that this
14:34curiosity is not even voluntary. These
14:36people in general, at least, will not
14:38seek to contradict what they think for
14:39the sake of mental hygiene, even though
14:41it is obviously very beneficial to do
14:43so. But they will simply consume this
14:45type of information for the pleasure of
14:46it and out of a desire to discover
14:48other points of view. A bit like
14:50children who are interested in
14:51everything. And I think that's what we
14:53should remember from these graphs. We
14:54must become children again and explore
14:56the world with curiosity, not protect
14:58our own. Let's try to understand that
15:00we all have different experiences, we
15:02all have an advocate within us that
15:03hides the truth. If others think a
15:05certain way, it's for a good reason.
15:07And if we think a certain way, it's for
15:09a good reason. Of course, I'm not
15:12legitimizing all opinions and beliefs,
15:14but as I often say, everything can be
15:16explained but not justified. I don't
15:19know if it's possible to completely
15:21eliminate this advocate within us, but
15:23what I do know is that we can cultivate
15:24our explorer. This curiosity that
15:26allows us to finally open our eyes.
15:29It's this curiosity that can give us
15:30our intellectual freedom that limits
15:32external manipulation and the impact of
15:34all our biases. I realize that it's
15:36extremely difficult to operate like
15:38this, to come across information that
15:39contradicts our deepest convictions and
15:41not get defensive or destroy it like a
15:43lawyer. I'm not going to preach to you,
15:45I rarely manage to do that. We have to
15:47keep in mind that even after this video
15:49, we will still make mistakes and
15:51protect our truth instead of
15:52discovering the truth. That's normal,
15:55we are just fallible machines, but the
15:57first step is to become aware of it. I
15:59think that's what true intelligence is.
16:02In fact, I've always put this
16:03intelligence on a pedestal as one of
16:05the most important qualities. But I
16:07realize with all this that I was wrong
16:09and that it's perhaps even the opposite
16:11. Without curiosity, I would never have
16:14realized it. Without curiosity, this
16:17video wouldn't exist. Maybe it's time
16:19we questioned our definition of this
16:21cube. Perhaps we have been too blinded
16:24by our own perspective to properly
16:25identify what intelligence really is.
16:27We need to take the time to explore
16:29each of these aspects to better
16:31understand it, to better understand
16:32ourselves. And to do that, we just need
16:35to have the curiosity to raise it to
16:37finally reveal its hidden side.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Le paradoxe de l’intelligence by CroustiJu, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 3,185 words across 481 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.